On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
It's not 'nowhere land' it's part of the country they all share taxes with. I don't believe people who live in rural areas should pay a higher % of tax because of the added cost of providing medical assistance, policing, fire protection, road maintenance, and electricity/gas network etc etc etc.
this could be usa. you know, they dont even have health insurance
On October 16 2009 07:32 RoyW wrote: you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america?
It also only has 1/60 of the population....
"Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas."
Could you provide any hypothetical figures to back up your wild anti-socialism policies? You seem idealistically invested in opposition to government provision of any facilities. I'm going to guess you oppose a free health-care service, and not to divert the topic, but opposition to that is repulsive, and from a purely fiscal viewpoint, wrong.
Repulsive is your personal response. I don't really care.
Think about how parliament would get ISPs to lay down broadband in rural areas. 1. They could pay for the infrastructure. (raise taxes or defund some other program) 2. They could subsidize the broadband subscriptions by paying part of the subscription fee. (raise taxes or defund some other program) 3. They could regulate the industry so that several ISPs get preferred treatment for the more profitable regions. (this is like parliament dividing monopoly rights on broadband service over all of Finland.) 4. They could regulate the industry such that ISPs have to match kilometer for kilometer of new broadband piping in urban areas with new broadband piping in rural areas. (rural broadband investments are deadweight since they have no real chance of earning back its capital expenses)
Finnish government has given indication that it will probably be regulating the ISPs. That means either an pseudo-monopoly in ISPs or deadweight investments by ISPs in order to fulfill the segment of the market that will be profitable - the urban and suburban broadband users.
My revulsion against this plan isn't because I'm sure that it's populist socialism. This plan is just as likely going to be a huge corporate giveaway to politically-connect ISPs or to broadband fiber laying companies. It'll definitely benefit the rural districts, and the urban population areas will surely be paying for it - either slower than otherwise upgrade of broadband speeds or higher prices for broadband service but most likely both.
So you disagree with the Finnish government's policy of avoiding excessive urbanization and/or promotion of decentralization? That's your issue that has lead to your paragraphs of heated opposition?
On October 16 2009 08:03 uiCk wrote: tangen, you dont get my point, (not explaining properly probably). not everything you do has to be profit related for it to work. comes down to that i guess.
edit : also from wiki : Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. yea its a big chunk, but its not all, anyways not the point.
... Do you realize that the 20% of the GDP probably drives about 60% of the economy.
Construction workers, restaurants, schools, housing, boating industry, transportation - a large portion of the supporting infrastructure is built to support the oil industry. The vaunted socialism of Norway is largely depended on the taxes from oil extraction.
Since Norway is so dependent on oil economy, it's actually quite wise for them to invest heavily in education so that future generations can reconstruct a productive economy when the oil wells dry up. Rest of Norwegian socialism isn't so wise and it would be prudent for the people of Norway not to get too accustomed to it.
On October 16 2009 08:22 RoyW wrote: So you disagree with the Finnish government's policy of avoiding excessive urbanization and/or promotion of decentralization? That's your issue that has lead to your paragraphs of heated opposition?
Whats the point of being a rich country if you spend the money that defines you as rich on stuff that does not help your average citizen? (Like the giant armed forces in many countries).
As long as you have homeless, people whiteout healthcare and *true* poverty broadband internet access to everyone may sound a little retarded. But after the other things are basically extinct why not go a step further and do more stuff that actually helps your people... Instead of buying new tanks and jets or reducing taxes for the rich...
That's badass! I would never ever trust the U.S federal government to do something like this as they seem to tard up everything, but perhaps major cities could do something like this.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
You disagree with what exactly? I am saying the matter of nationalization, tax funding or the actual speed are all unimportant compared to the advance made with declaring internet access a right.
To give you some perspective, if things go wrong the next couple of months, a EU-wide legislative will make every member state implement a law that gives the national states the right to ban you from the internet, completely. No ISP would be allowed to give you access once you are black listed. A model of this can be seen in France, where - initially - 3 complaints were enough to get your access revoked. Now at least a judge has to sentence you to offline life. Germany also is a proponent of this. How this will look on the European level is being discussed these days.
By declaring internet access a citizen's basic right, the Fins will be the only people in the EU who will have legal means and tools to reject this legislation outright. There are more implications, for example in the mentioned area of net neutrality, but protection from internet bans is the most current one.
Compared to the danger of the state being allowed to ban you from important parts of educational, social, economic, and cultural life a few tax euro for remote broadband access is laughably unimportant.
On October 16 2009 08:17 TanGeng wrote: My revulsion against this plan isn't because I'm sure that it's populist socialism. This plan is just as likely going to be a huge corporate giveaway to politically-connect ISPs or to broadband fiber laying companies. It'll definitely benefit the rural districts, and the urban population areas will surely be paying for it - either slower than otherwise upgrade of broadband speeds or higher prices for broadband service but most likely both.
what is the problem with urban population paying for rural districts?
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to live out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
Scandinavia is rather sparsely populated and Finland as a society has decided they want to promote decentralization and fight extreme urbanization. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.
Also, there are no tax dollars involved here and broadband isn't being nationalized.
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information. so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
Your post is stupid. You presented no new information or ideas in your post for me to discuss and often times well educated people are the most close minded because they think they know it all (not always the case of course.)
Also, I'd never heard of someone being banned from the internet. I guess that is an EU thing? Is it the penalty for piracy or what? Because I always thought I'd read on TL that piracy in the EU isn't really cracked down upon that hard. I can understand the need for legal backing of the right to be online if for some reason internet usage is being so easily revoked but I have never heard of that occurring.
if u need information, gotta learn to read first, im sure someone posted already, but theres diference between created the infrastructure for everyones use, and providing the service free of charge (neither free, nor is the gouverment providing internet to people), so your post is "stupid". your "argument" is somewere along these lines:
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information. so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
Your post is stupid. You presented no new information or ideas in your post for me to discuss and often times well educated people are the most close minded because they think they know it all (not always the case of course.)
Also, I'd never heard of someone being banned from the internet. I guess that is an EU thing? Is it the penalty for piracy or what? Because I always thought I'd read on TL that piracy in the EU isn't really cracked down upon that hard. I can understand the need for legal backing of the right to be online if for some reason internet usage is being so easily revoked but I have never heard of that occurring.
The internet ban is for "file-sharing" which I suppose the legislators actually mean illegal torrenting/downloading. The problem is that if you just ban said people off the internet altogether, it's not just file sharing that they cannot do anymore, but also staying informed. For example, as far as I can tell, the mainstream news media in the US is a combination of "Fuck the liberals" + "Fuck the conservatives" and then a bunch of random news that are so random and pointless that you wonder why they made front cover. The internet is just a far better place to stay informed and not get your worldview completely twisted and fucked up, if you know how to navigate it.
If people are simply supporting this "broadband is right" because they like rural districts, then I don't understand what the hype is. But it's hardly something to get excite about. It is everyday politics.
If people are excited about broadband and excellent broadband service, the law is counterproductive. The economics of the situation suggests that broadband infrastructure improvements in the cities will be dragged down by mandated investments in rural areas. It's not good policy for the best broadband access, and moving to Finland for broadband would be a terrible idea.
If it's just to feel good about making broadband a "right" - rather classifying it as a necessary utility - I would suggest that they examine what the costs will be. At best, feel good laws are exercises in masturbation. At worst, it's like shooting heroin.
Interesting, that's pretty cool I guess. Does this also mean they can't shut off your net for pirating?
Because of Government regulation of ISPs, the law makes it more likely that they will shut off your net for pirating.
On October 16 2009 18:46 zatic wrote: (...)I am saying the matter of nationalization, tax funding or the actual speed are all unimportant compared to the advance made with declaring internet access a right.(...)
Both nationalization and a right to internet are very important. The former arguably is a large step backwards and the latter is a large step forwards: it is a recognition of article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights.
(...)By declaring internet access a citizen's basic right, the Fins will be the only people in the EU who will have legal means and tools to reject this legislation outright. There are more implications, for example in the mentioned area of net neutrality, but protection from internet bans is the most current one.(...)
There is a humongous difference between a legal entitlement and a legal right. A legal right means nobody can interfere with you getting internet access. A legal entitlement means that, if you don't have internet access, you can sue someone to provide it for you. The former is article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. The latter is socialization of internet, which is arguably a big step backwards.
(...)Compared to the danger of the state being allowed to ban you from important parts of educational, social, economic, and cultural life a few tax euro for remote broadband access is laughably unimportant.(...)
You are lumping together two fundamentally different issues. One is socialization of internet which is immensely controversial, and the other is a universally agreed upon human right. By confusing a legal entitlement with a right, you are pushing socialism under false pretences. This is the moral corruption that I was talking about. Surely few freedom-minded people will argue that a negative right to internet is a bad thing.
The Finnish initiative, however, is much more about socializing internet than about a recognition of article 25. The Finnish government will happily ban people from the socialized net "to prevent the spread of child pornography" and "to prevent piracy."
On October 17 2009 01:52 TanGeng wrote: If people are simply supporting this "broadband is right" because they like rural districts, then I don't understand what the hype is. But it's hardly something to get excite about. It is everyday politics.
If people are excited about broadband and excellent broadband service, the law is counterproductive. The economics of the situation suggests that broadband infrastructure improvements in the cities will be dragged down by mandated investments in rural areas. It's not good policy for the best broadband access, and moving to Finland for broadband would be a terrible idea.
If it's just to feel good about making broadband a "right" - rather classifying it as a necessary utility - I would suggest that they examine what the costs will be. At best, feel good laws are exercises in masturbation. At worst, it's like shooting heroin.
Interesting, that's pretty cool I guess. Does this also mean they can't shut off your net for pirating?
Because of Government regulation of ISPs, the law makes it more likely that they will shut off your net for pirating.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the reason it can be necessary (for an EU nation) to declare something like broadband a "right" is because there have been recent proposals within the EU which could get your internet shut off. However, if a member nation has granted said broadband as a right to its citizens, then it is allowed to opt out of enforcing the decision. Sure, there is a cost involved, but really there's no reason not to when one of your goals is to decentralize from the large urban areas anyways. It's like saying why build large roads through the middle of the US where the population is sparse.
Your point about slowing down infrastructure development in the urban areas: yea, it will probably slow it down, but if you want to have acceptable internet service as a right (which 1 mb/s is sufficient for most if not all social participation/awareness purposes), then obviously you would take priority in making sure everyone has the ability to exercise that right before you improve on the ability of those who can already exercise it to exercise it better.
Granted, I personally find this to be somewhat silly from an economic viewpoint, but I can see how it can be useful due to the political circumstances.
EPT
